Sandhu Amandeep Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 104/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 4 November 2021.
1. On 15 September 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“ the CA Judgment ”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Bruno Chan dated 22 September 2020 refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review.
Cited by 2 cases
|
CAMP 104/2021 [2021] HKCA 1568 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 104 OF 2021 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 647 OF 2018) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 15 September 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Bruno Chan dated 22 September 2020 refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. 2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 21 September 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant repeats his complaint about the lack of legal and language assistance, a matter which has been already dealt with in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the CA Judgment, and in paragraph 6 of the Judge’s Decision dated 1 April 2021 refusing to grant to the Applicant an extension of time to appeal. 3.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 4.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Ordinance. 5.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
The Applicant, acting in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 104/2021